Talk:Trifoliate orange

'Edible'?
Need some experts to weigh in here...are they actually inedible, or just unpleasant? Does the fruit contain anything harmful to humans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.136.168 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * are this fruit actually indible. 2603:6080:740C:8900:6D88:41DC:370C:8BC5 (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It has been eaten both in East Asia (where it's from) and in northern Europe. The fruit is packed with seeds, so there's not a lot of juice, but you can still get some. You can also candy or dry the rinds, or make marmalade. --Macrakis (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

'Syn.'?
What does 'syn.' in the first line mean? 124.180.146.20 06:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The abbreviation "syn." indicates a synonym of the accepted scientific name of the species. JoJan 14:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

thorns, not spines (?)
I've consulted two sources (Weakley, Flora of the Carolinas, Virgina, and Northern Florida, and Radford, Ahles and Bell, Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas), and they concur that the sharp objects on the stem are thorns. not spines as the article currently states. I will change it but change it back if that is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EphraimWilliams (talk • contribs) 03:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Supposed pharmacology
This article contains a list of in vitro studies which may give the mistaken perception that they are relevant to human health. No such claim would be accurate, and calling these studies "pharmacology" is a stretch, too, because it implies a pharmacological effect that has not been demonstrated. If there are no objections, I think the section should be removed per WP:MEDRS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.32.69 (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Medicinal
"Oriental medicine" is not a thing, and is racist. Either this is used in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) or Ayurveda, or some folk medicine by specific cultures or regions. This should be edited to be more specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aariq (talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that "Oriental medicine" is old-fashioned and vague at best. However, that is what the source article calls it. The opening sentence of the cited article's abstract reads:
 * The fruits of Poncirus trifoliata (L.) are widely used in Oriental medicine as a remedy for allergic inflammation.
 * The authors of the study are all based in China or South Korea, so we can guess that they mean some sort of traditional Chinese medicine or traditional Korean medicine. If someone has access to the text of the article (I don't), perhaps it is more specific, and says whether it include traditional Vietnamese medicine, traditional Mongolian medicine, etc. I will edit the article to say "traditional medicine of East Asia", even though that could be considered WP:SYNTH. --Macrakis (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Why is this not using the scientific name as the article URL
Per Naming conventions (flora) why is this under a common name URL? This species is not not especially well known that this common name so common. I propose to change it to the scientific name.--Wasp32 (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Because neither species nor genus names are appropriate. Because of the practicalities described at WP:NOPAGE, there are two species described together on this page, collectively referred to as the trifoliate oranges. This makes a single-species namespace inappropriate. Likewise at the genus level we would also have a problem, because citrus taxonomy is a trainwreck. There is no consensus whether these belong in their own genus, Poncirus, or should be classified as members of Citrus. Thus, while common-name namespace use may not be the best, in this case it is the least-bad option. Agricolae (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There is only one species described on this page. There are simply two different systematic names for the species. It is easy enough to redirect from one to the other. --Macrakis (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

"As Food"
I'm trying to determine if the lines under this topic about poncirin content as well as the plant being dried and powdered are plagiarized. There are several other websites that use these sentences verbatim but I'm having trouble figuring out where the original usage is, could totally be this article. If anyone knows one way or the other that would be great. Notaneldrichhorror (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That's been in the article since at least 2020, and all of the websites I see with verbatim sentences are from 2021 or later (and some acknowledge Wikipedia as the source). Plantdrew (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)